Gatorskin is a training tyre... in tubular you can get anything you want just like clinchers, cheap arse training tyres up to beautifully hand made Dugasts Speed Diamond Silk's. The best tubs are always going to be better than the best clinchers... just depends how much you want to spend.

toolonglegs wrote:Gatorskin is a training tyre... in tubular you can get anything you want just like clinchers, cheap arse training tyres up to beautifully hand made Dugasts Speed Diamond Silk's. The best tubs are always going to be better than the best clinchers... just depends how much you want to spend.

Agree.In tubulars, Continental Competition are my recommendation. They are very tough and dont puncture easily. They are fast and expensive. Vittorias are generally slightly faster but puncture easier.Not sure why you would want to run tubbies when you can get such good quality clinchers. Long distance triathletes prefer the tubs because they 'roll' better, whereas cyclists prefer a soft grippy clincher like Pro Race or Schwalbe Ultremo.Tubulars are a major hassle to fit correctly, and are a throw away if you puncture them (although my dad unpicks the stitching and repairs them, a lost art these days).

I like the Schwalbe clinchers, but if you must have a tubular, try the Competitions. I took a team to a 2 week Tour overseas on rough roads (one dirt stage) and they rode Competitions and we never had one puncture or one problem. Several Pro teams use them too.

Why do long distance triathletes need to roll better than Road Cyclists, and why do Road Cyclists need to have a softer grippy clincher?

I have a question about matching tires to rims with the ENVE RIMS (at 26mm and 24mm widths).

i read that to obtain the optimal aero, the width of the tire needs to be the same as the rim width.

I do not see 26mm and 24mm tires.

Thoughts?

Krank

Most cyclists use clinchers because they are easier. Soft and grippy for cornering in criteriums and for fast dangerous hill descents.Triathletes ... well every thousandth of a second counts apparently.

As for optimal aero, I cant answer that. I have no interest in that stuff. The only blokes I know who have all the go fast gear and bikes are in D grade at my cycling club. There is a 15 year old kid in A grade who smashes everyone on an aluminium bike with Shimano 500 wheels. Another bloke I know often rocks up on an old steely with 7 speed downtube shifters wearing stubbies and a T shirt, makes fools of everyone in B grade, takes the money and goes home. There's a lesson there somewhere...I once put latex tubes in my tyres for my club championships, got in a break with 2 other blokes who couldnt sprint, was 2km from certain victory and the valve came away from the tube .... so yeah, I place more importance on tyre puncture / cut resistance, grip and safety, reliability, cost, ease to fit ...practical stuff rather than the theory / science.

The widths of the rims is designed like that. If you use a 23mm tyre it will be a much flatter transition to the rim, instead of a bulge of the tyre leading into a narrower rim. 25mm tyres are also usable

In another aspect it stops the tyre from flexing while you are cornering for better grip.

Yeah I would be running 25's... plenty of the top brands make them. Plenty of pro's running 25's these days with the wider rims... better handling, more comfort, bigger air volume so less pinch flats etc.

The reason behind what Derny Driver is saying about riders doing well on cheaper equipment is that the vast bulk of the result comes from the riders ability rather than the equipment.

What prevents you going faster is wind, rolling resistance and mechanical resistance. Mechanical resistance is something really small, like 2% of effort (don't quote me on that figure). Rolling resistance is your tyre/tube, which is a small in comparison with wind resistance. Now it doesn't stop there as something like 80% of wind resistance is on your body and not the bike.

So the difference of 1 or 2mm tyre on the rim on aerodynamics is minor compared with the overall picture. BTW tyres from different manufactures of the same size are likely to be different sizes in real life. Look up Sheldon Brown - dishonesty in sizing.

Triathletes using singles, yes it does happen. However I borrowed the wheels off who was once the #4 triathlete in Australia and they were clinchers.

The bigger tyres probably lose you a second or two in aero... only really matters in TT's... but the 25 tyres are noticeably more comfy than 23's.

One interesting change we've noted from years past, however, is tire size. Pro teams aren't just moving to wider rims, they're moving to wider tires, and Goss' Continental Competition Pro Limiteds are a healthy 25mm across, for better traction and a smoother ride.

For roadside tubular repairs, i read that it is important to carry a spare tub that is already coated with glue...?

How can you carry a spare tire cleanly without rubbing the coated glue everywhere?

And, how long does this glue stay moist (and hence effective for mounting)?

I am thinking of the normal scenario, whereby you ride with the glued spare tucked underneath the seat (or in your case the spare bottle holder) for many many rides and hundreds (maybe 1000's) of kms, then suddenly you have a flat and need to change the tire....

What happens to the glue on that well travelled spare tire and how effective will it be to bond correctly to the rim?

I recommend people not rely on what equipment Pros are riding/using as an indication of what's best for performance or what's suitable for their needs. Pros mostly ride what their sponsors require them to.

Clinchers are generally easier to change if/when required and there's no great performance difference in rolling resistance or aero between the same wheel and tyre as a tub or as a clincher. In some cases for those that specialise in TTs, there are some clincher versions of tyres that perform better than the tub equivalent but we are talking high end events where performance is the primary aim. I have no idea what your specific circumstances/needs are, hence YMMV.

Latex tubes are certainly better for performance (in tubs and clinchers as they reduce rolling resistance) and are no more puncture prone than butyl (I'd say DD was just unlucky with the valve) but latex tubes are much harder to change and/or require far more care when replacing to avoid pinching, and so their use in training in not recommended. Changing a latex tube is a job best done at home.

If using tubs for training, then the manner in which they are glued for practicality (able to be readily removed and replaced with a spare) compromises their performance, and for the most part will see their rolling resistance go up beyond the equivalent clincher tyre. For performance usage, the glueing technique needs to be far more secure and makes getting a tyre off a difficult and sometimes painful process, and the process to prepare the rim also somewhat tiresome. Take short cuts and performance declines.

Krank, those pitstop cans inflate as well... no extra CO2 needed.Yes spare needs to be preglued...then folded up so the glued faces are covered. But an unglued tyre will stay on your rim quite well to get you home in an emergency... they are a tight fit. I think you always reglue a hasty tyre change properly at the end of the day.Personally I will rarely ride anywhere that I will need a spare... all training on clinchers, most of my races are 4-12kms circuits, no laps out... puncture race over. Longer stage races we have a team car and broom wagon. Cyclosportives that I do are all really hilly and I won't be near the front... I will take clinchers.But I would probably advise carry the tyre wrapped in something if it is on your bike for a long time. Like I say, were I live a lot of people train full time on tubs...so it can be done no problems.

Alex, once I found the simple technique for changing latex tubes life become very easy. Start at the valve go round till the tube wont sit properly when trying to install the tyre, with about 10-15% of the tyre still to install. Pull off some of the first section you installed ( for some reason the tube will sit perfectly in this section now (?) . Then finish reinstalling. I am sure you know this all...others may not. Especially useful when reinstalling used latex tubes.

Krank wrote:Will a good clincher with latex tube have a lower RR than a glued tubular - at the same pressure?

krank

It depends on who is doing the measuring and what is being measured.

An engineer describes rolling resistance as the energy losses due to the the hysteresis of deforming the rubber as the tyre is bent out of shape and back again (at the bottom of the wheel) as you are riding. This is usually measured on a steel drum. In this test clinchers out perform tubulars because of the movement of a tubular against the rim with a typical soft road glue. Interestingly a better glue job has measurably smaller losses than a poorer one which also makes you safer but is harder to remove the tyre if you puncture. If you use a hard glue like shellac (not typically used by road cyclists) the balance may swing back in the favour of tubulars. In other words the engineer's rolling resistance difference is very small but is mostly in the favour of clinchers.

Other people will include 'suspension losses' in their definition of rolling resistance. This relates to the tyres ability to absorb a bump and allow the main mass to continue in the same direction of movement without being deflected upwards. This is similar to the argument about tyre pressure. The tyre pressure argument is that rolling resistance always decreases with more pressure. However taking into account suspension losses you find that above a certain pressure your total resistance increases. The much praised ride quality of good tubulars is because they offer better suspension so riding a tubular often feels like riding with 10-15psi less than an equivalent clincher. At the same time you get better cornering traction because you have more rubber on the road for more of the time.

I believe that the total losses of riding a tubular are lower than riding a clincher, even with latex tubes. If you want to get all nerdy about every last watt for your next world record attempt then you should use a hard glue (and a support vehicle). Tubulars will be lighter for the same rim profile and for riding on wooden velodromes (where the bumps are very small) you can also run higher pressures since unlike clinchers the pressure is not trying to pull the rim apart.

The only disadvantage of tubulars is with punctures (BTW you don't need to cary glue with you, the residual glue will be fine to get you home). I don't use sealants since I prefer to patch them, however I also only use tubulars out of town where there is a significantly reduced chance of punctures. If you could guarantee no punctures then I would ride tubulars all the time, but since you can't I only use them on my race wheels which get driven to the race. If I had to ride to the races from home I'd consider clinchers since there are too many glass strewn roads between here and there.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.